Property talk:P225/Archive 1

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

first topic[edit]

I see that there are many cases here which have long since been resolved: there just are two genera named Linaria, Pieris, Hamadryas, etc, etc. It would really help if these were not listed again, and again, and ... - Brya (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. I asked for a corresponding feature: User_talk:Ivan_A._Krestinin#Whitelist  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

format violations[edit]

To be excepted

  • clades that are not capitalized (for example Q25314: angiosperms)
  • the diaresis (in names of algae, fungi or plants. for example Q2529160: Isoëtes echinospora)

Still pending
any cultivar name

some cultivar names (complicated cases), but mostly virus names (which may have just about any form). - Brya (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad[edit]

@Brya, FelixReimann: Too bad such property are rejected to avoid those case of endless rediscoveries ... TomT0m (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I can't really interact very well with Succu but for some reason he wanted to move that here. It's an answer to #first_topic. TomT0m (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(BK) What ever you - TomT0m - intended with your remark of „endless rediscoveries“. I have no idea. --Succu (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see also known as (on WikiProject Taxonomy) Succu. TomT0m (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed "homonym" would also have helped. - Brya (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could try to propose a more specific property, e.g. "differentiate from taxon" + item. --- Jura 06:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might help. - Brya (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With QuickStatements, one could easily add the lists above to the items. --- Jura 11:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with that. Try what Succu thinks? - Brya (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jura, Brya: I think this is a good solution. --Succu (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I totally oppose to use such negative properties. Wikidata is a open world database, and this was a useful design decision. If we would have such a property, noone could oppose if I would start to add for each and every taxon is not <any other taxon> and moreover is not Universe (Q1) Earth (Q2),life (Q3).... It ist just the wrong way to add nearly senseless data if our real problem is just a to weak creator of constraint violation reports.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As arguments go, this is not convincing. It is implicit that Universe (Q1) is not Earth (Q2) is not life (Q3) and there is no point in making this explicit.
        Wikidata is supposed to be readable by both machine and human eye. Perhaps a machine can differentiate between names of the same spelling [not sure about that], but we have seen plenty of examples of users who fail in this.
        However, the big problem is not with the items on this page, but with the cases that have not been resolved yet. - Brya (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt he understood the suggestion on how to use this property here. "every taxon is not <any other taxon>" is not what we intend to use it for. Besides, the property was already created. BTw, please ping me if you need help with QuickStatements. --- Jura 05:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Felix, this is owl:differentFrom not owl:disjointWith. I think this fits well with to our case of homonymy. --Succu (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spermophilus - supergenus?[edit]

Spermophilus (Q18227883) - supergenus, Spermophilus (Q199251) - genus, Spermophilus (Q20871338) - subgenus. I see that supergenus (Q18012823) is used only one time. Also, there is only one site link for it. Is "supergenus" valid taxonomic rank? --Termininja (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For animals this is simple: supergenus cannot exist as a rank. - Brya (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Value[edit]

Should this be a MonolingualTextValue instead of a StringValue? If so, we will have to convert the datatype when MonolingualTextValue is introduced, which will require a work-around. --OldakQuill (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the taxon name follows an international standard, so I believe it should be regarded as "multi-lingual". It's just as consistent across languages as a chemical formula or catalog number. - Soulkeeper (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon rank[edit]

Let's approve the use of this property also for latin names of taxon ranks (Ordo, Regnum and so on)? Besides, it has to be chosen if the first letter should be Big or small? Infovarius (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, for that we simply add the Latin equivalent under the Latin language section. Ranks are not taxa themselves; they're ranks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't they have international notations? Infovarius (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to translate the names of taxon ranks. In Portuguese the translate versions are in use. Ex: Regnum (kingdom) --» (pt) Reino. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

format constraint[edit]

set it [A-Z]?[a-z]+( [A-Z]?[a-z]+)* --Akkakk 23:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

changed the pattern to [A-Z]?[a-z]+([- ]\(?[A-Z]?[a-z×]+\)?\.?)* it may match "Populus × canescens", "Encephalartos friderici-guilielmi", "Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa" and "Euxoa (Chorizagrotis) lidia" now --Akkakk 10:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added prefix (× ?)? to accept "× Malosorbus florentina" and "×Malosorbus florentina" and ignore somevalue and novalue. Why was the first pattern "[A-Z]?" optional? Every valid name should begin with an upper case letter, or? Moreover, if there is an inner name like for "Euxoa (Chorizagrotis) lidia" there must be a third part which starts with lower case, or? Currently, "Euxoa (genus)" is accepted which is probably a common error.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
changed the pattern to:
{{Constraint:Format|pattern=<nowiki>(somevalue|novalue|(
  (× )?[A-Z][a-z]+(
    ( [A-Z]?[a-z]+)|
    ( [a-z]+-[a-z]+)|
    ( × [a-z]+)|
    ( \([A-Z][a-z]+\) [a-z]+)|
    ( sub)?sp\.| (con)?var\.| sect\.
  )*
))</nowiki>}}
this will not match all correct values. the subsp./sp.-part should be expanded to match all allowed abbrevations. --Akkakk 11:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the changed pattern matches:

  • Populus × canescens
  • Encephalartos friderici-guilielmi
  • Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa
  • × Malosorbus florentina
  • Euxoa (Chorizagrotis) lidia

it doesn't match:

  • Symphysodon (Cichlidae)
  • Mula (animal)
  • eukaryota
  • Plantago maritima agg.
  • Citrus ×paradisi
  • Deinococcus-Thermus
  • Hepatitis A
  • Juncus bufonius s. str.
  • Piraña
  • Mythimna (Hyphilare) l-album
  • Herpesvirus porcino 1
  • Puntius cf. tetrazona
  • Escherichia coli O157:H7
  • Fago T4
  • ×Haagespostoa

is that correct? --Akkakk 09:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to WikiSpecies[edit]

See WikiSpecies integration with taxon name. The Anonymouse (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more forms of names[edit]

This should accept more forms, like

  • a hyphen in a generic name (Solms-laubachia)
  • more than one hyphen in a specific or infraspecific epithet (Balloniscus insularum-infra-ventum)
  • hyphens in a nothospecific epithet, or nothoinfraspecific epithet (Athyrium ×boreo-occidentali-indobharaticola-birianum)
  • preferably also hybrid formula's (Leontopodium stoloniferum × dedekensii)
  • cultivar names (Solanum melongena ‘Ronde de Valence’)

- Brya (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error report[edit]

The latest edit gave the warning 

Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls.

It should have less than 500 calls, there are now 502 calls.

This does not sound good, especially since there is no end in sight, of possible exceptions. - Brya (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now up to 522 calls. - Brya (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivan A. Krestinin:: Is it possible to integrate a format like [[Q15568699|Vernonia letiënsis]] instead of [[Q15568699]]? It would be helpful to see the taxon name in the exception list. --Succu (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Currently no. But you can use comments. See Property talk:P244 as example. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Too many[edit]

To get back to five hundred or so, I have taken out these "format" exceptions, but this is not really a long term solution, as the "unique value"-exceptions by themselves also are more than five hundred:

A solution of some kind is called for? - Brya (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to just ignore the errors here for now and add them again to the above list. The constraint violations page is more important than this here. Hopefully, Ivan eventually changes his bot that it also accepts Q12345 instead of the templates.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an option: the bot breaks down and does not give a report.
        The only new option that comes to mind is to have the bot take "taxon name" letter by letter. First just all the names starting with "A", put out a report, then those starting with "B", put out a report, etc. That should give plenty of leeway: we won't easily hit 500 exceptions per letter. - Brya (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the bot did not run the last week because of missing database dumps. This was true for nearly all constraint violation reports. I would really wonder if Ivan would not parse these exceptions here from the source code of this page and, thus, it would not suffer from the transclusion limit. This only limits the number of items which are shown here by name and ID. Take for example the 8 unique item exceptions which already showing script errors here: They are correctly excluded from the report. Please add them just back. If it really fails, we ask Ivan again to fix his bot.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced, the bot was running for other properties. Still, I see there are other properties with the same pattern, so it is inconclusive.
        BTW, I am not convinced it would be a good idea to eliminate ë from the search; this is an error in names under the ICZN, and this helps eliminating these errors. - Brya (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you are right, I removed ë.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently you were right about the bot running no matter how many exceptions are entered! Curious how one may delude oneself. - Brya (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

taxon name (P225) and cultivar (Q4886)[edit]

Hello, is this property applicable for cultivar (Q4886)? For example see Gloster (Q353082). — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is OK, cultivars may (more or less) be taken for taxa. But cultivated plants tend to be problematical: for instance Groups are not really taxa. In the case of Gloster (Q353082), somebody made it a plant variety, which almost surely it is not. - Brya (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


taxon name (P225) => add as alias (if <> label)?[edit]

If the taxon name doesn't match the label, can we add it as alias (sample diff "Vultur gryphus" for Andean condor). Otherwise the taxon name isn't searchable. --- Jura 07:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. - Brya (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done for mammals in English. Maybe the easier solution is to switch to a language that already has them ;) --- Jura 07:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you may have read, I am in favour of just using P225 automatically as the label (that is have the software read P225 and then output it as whatever label desirable). This would save a lot of storage space, and make the system run more lightly. Also for names of persons, books, films, songs, etc. - Brya (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For entering values in species kept (P1990), it's just annoying if they aren't available as labels or alias. Maybe switching interface language to Cebuano is the easiest solution. --- Jura 04:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience this is annoying whenever entering anything. It makes it hard to build any kind of structure. - Brya (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with subclass of (P279)[edit]

I removed subclass of (P279) from the incompatibility list, because taxons should be able to be subclasses. -- Whidou (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional taxon names?[edit]

Some characters or species from fiction have fictional taxon names which are obviously not present or used for any real recognised species. Is it okay to use taxon name (P225) for such taxon names? See for example: Norn (Q12958768). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. - Brya (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied[edit]

copied from the Talk page of user:Pigsonthewing (see also here):

Let's summarize:
  • property pages and constraint violation pages have Talk pages, and nobody (except you) perceives this to be a problem.
  • as I understand it these Talk pages are little used (10 cases), so whatevere issue there might be is a small issue. Anyway, it is appropriate to deal with these on a case by case basis.
  • it is quite normal to want to comment on a property, and it is quite normal to want to want to comment on a constraint violation process. In an emergency situation this might be done on a single Talk page but separate Talk pages, for these separate topics, are much clearer.
  • Your rationale (for whatever warped reasons occur in your mind) is that users should be forced to post their comments on both topics on the Talk page of the property, but in the case of P225 this is impossible (page has to be kept clear), so your operation is without even the rationale you posted. You are just making trouble, for the sake of making trouble. Please refrain from doing that. - Brya (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latin name[edit]

"Binomial nomenclature (also called binominal nomenclature or binary nomenclature) is a formal system of naming species of living things by giving each a name composed of two parts, both of which use Latin grammatical forms, although they can be based on words from other languages. Such a name is called a binomial name (which may be shortened to just "binomial"), a binomen, binominal name or a scientific name; more informally it is also called a Latin name" --Fractaler (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Wikipedia is not a source. --Succu (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So "more informally it is also called a Latin name" is false statement? --Fractaler (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a particularly bad enwiki page to cite.
  • Anyway, "taxon name" ≠ "scientific name" ≠ "binominal name".
  • Rather, a subset of "taxon name" = a subset of scientific name.
Brya (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

published in (P1433)[edit]

I've added published in as allowed qualifier constraint. Example of use in Allostichaster palmula (Q2858131). Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a qualifier of taxon name (P225). It's reference to be used that way. --Succu (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
published in (P1433) has the description "larger work that a given work was published in, like a book, journal or music album"; this might apply to a protologue, but not to a name. A name is not a work.
        What could be used here is P5326 (P5326), but this propably should be used as a statement, not a qualifier. - Brya (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you I added it to Allostichaster palmula (Q2858131) however 1/ it is redundant with "stated in" 2/it's very clear that it's relative to the taxon name, therefore it should be used as a qualifier for that, but well... Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is relative to the taxon name, but so is, in one way or another, just about everything in the item. Putting data in qualifiers to "taxon name" may make it difficult to read out data, depending on the software used, and it is not possible to add qualifiers to qualifiers. Sometimes it is handy to be able to add a qualifier.
        To some extent, it is redundant to "stated in", but it is not redundant to "instance of: first description (of a taxon)", as this refers to the taxon, not to the name. Also "instance of" should not be used as a qualifier. - Brya (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're right, avoid qualifiers when it is not necessary. This taxon name is (should be) intrinsically connected with that item, this item is about a species under this specific name, and if the species is renamed then a new item should be created, in any case according to my point of view. Sadly I already seen a few taxon items whose label have been changed to reflect new species name, not a practice that I do. Thanks again. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you see "taxon items whose label have been changed to reflect new species name", please revert that. That shouldn't happen (see also the new edit notice). - Brya (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if I see that again I will revert that. @Brya: What is "new edit notice"? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See above, at "Format and edit filter validation". Also here. - Brya (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks you Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P225/Archive_1&oldid=809258308"